“On a phone, the biggest intellectual difference is you don’t go to your search box as your first resort,” said Keith Rabois, a partner at the venture capital firm Khosla Ventures, who has invested in a search start-up called Relcy. “On a watch, it’s inconceivable that you would go to a search box perhaps at all.”

This is why Google and Apple are investing so intensely in advancing Google Now and Siri.

Two brilliant insights and illustrations by Luke Wroblewski on Twitter. His Tweets are here and here. Below are screenshots, to make sure readers can also see them in RSS or email.

I agree: readily accessible situation awareness (as you want to define it) is a very core and unique benefit of a smartwatch. Add the ability to provide that awareness distraction-free, without the lure of other details or apps, and it’s outstanding. Overlay that with proactive intelligent assistance, and it’ll be priceless.

The maker of the G-Shock series is betting its expertise as a watchmaker will help it outmaneuver the technological wizardry of the Apple Watch with a smartwatch that keeps an eye on the mass market’s need for comfort and durability. Casio says its product will be a watch that tries to be smart, rather than a smart device that is also a watch. […]

Now, [said Casio founder, Kazuhiro Kashio,] “we are trying to bring our smartwatch to a level of watch perfection: a device that won’t break easily, is simple to put on and feels good to wear.”

It seems Casio will essentially add very basic connectivity and information features to a watch. I honestly don’t know if that’s the right approach for Casio. Maybe it’s a good fit with their technology capability; I don’t profess to know.

But what I would say is this: If you don’t think of a smartwatch as a general computing device, you risk making the equivalent of a “feature watch”. Your product will definitely appeal to some users, but you’ll miss the transition to a new class of device, a new way of helping people every day.

I do, at one level, agree with Mr. Kashio’s remark about “feels good to wear”. I like my Apple Watch, for example, but the thing I miss most about my old “diving” watch is its rugged-but-classy face. Over time, however – with custom watch faces and new industrial designs – I expect the concern will fade. And it’s almost a moot point, since the issue won’t keep me (and many watch wearers, I think) from leaving their old watches behind.

Google has today announced the introduction of 17 brand new watch faces for Android Wear, spanning brands such as Rubiks, Hello Kitty, Angry Birds, and more. Google says that there are already more than 1,500 watch faces available to customize your device, and now — lucky you! — there are 17 more options to choose from…

Last Thursday, Mark Gurman reported on potential features for the next Apple Watch. Here’s the story at 9to5Mac. He has excellent sources and an excellent record in reporting upcoming Apple devices or features.

For this particular rumor, however, I suspect the source likely isn’t from Apple, and that the information may mostly reflect development exploration. For these reasons, I don’t think this specific story is that meaningful. (That’s not a knock against Mark.)

On the Source

1. It’s probably not an Apple employee. From my eight years at Motorola, I can tell you that the product managers, engineers, and supply chain staff working on new products are some of the hardest working people you’ll ever meet. Products are the lifeblood of the company, and they’re the livelihood of its people. Everyone with a stake in the company’s success knows this. So, the odds that someone at Apple leaked this information, right when Apple Watch is reaching Apple Stores (i.e., the “big launch”), are low.

Let’s combine these: a likely-external person, discussing feature “considerations”, without spec or software detail, about price point variants, and quoting granular information from consumer research. Based on that, I think it’s probably a low level employee (or attention-seeker) from a research firm that Apple trusted. The “considerations” may be features that appeared in a research aid.

And yes, I do realize that, generally, Apple does less product-design-related consumer research than most companies.

On the Content

FaceTime Video Camera: I’m surprised it was mentioned. I don’t mean in terms of any sort of personal preference, but in terms of the odds that Apple Watch consumers would value its utility. But, that’s one reason companies do consumer research – because one’s own sense of something may be completely incorrect. It’s almost like this feature was part of the “considerations” appearing on a survey or simulation. It might have even scored high. That can happen to both good and bad features.

Any other features that could normally function solely under a Wi-Fi connection do not function completely, including text messaging, emailing, and receiving updated weather data.

Isn’t this on watchOS 2, due in the fall? Confusing.

Battery Life: Sounds right. Battery life appears to be okay for most people. Including me. Note: If you look at the smartphone market as (only one) source of input, you’ll see that battery life has roughly stayed at around one day (some exceptions, Droid Maxx, Nexus 6, iPhone 6 Plus). Basically, that’s because the more capacity we get, the more we tune our use to i) take advantage of that extra power and ii) still have a little left at the end of the day.

Interesting that this source didn’t discuss less visible components or software in any sort of detail. Things like GPS, processors, or software features at a specific level… I think that supports my guess about the source.

SUMMARY

It’s a nice digital watch that does many things, quickly. I call this “fast utility”. I value the watch’s fast utility. When it gains phone call and map independence from the iPhone, I’ll value it more. When Siri is able to provide intelligent prompts or surface key information from apps, I might consider it an essential tool. And if the industrial design evolves from functional-but-bland to functional-and-beautiful, I’ll probably love it. But today, it’s just “nice” and a perhaps a few years from “love”. That’s fine. I know it’s Version 1. I’m adopting a wait-and-see attitude. Would I buy one again? For professional use, yes. For personal use, it’s too early to tell. Probably, if it advances the way I outlined above (and at the end of this post).

Where do I think, in more detail, Apple Watch is going next? Click here to zoom to the end of this post, or scroll down.

DETAILED NOTES

Context:

Model: Sport 42mm, space grey, black flouroelastomer band; $399.

This isn’t a review or a “product manager” perspective. Judgments are relative to my specific values, needs, or expectations.

I’ve worn a watch for >30 years.

Industrial Design

The right industrial design for a smartwatch, but not a design to “enjoy”.

I always agreed: One button for the watch face, and one for connecting with people, makes perfect sense. People/communication deserves a dedicated button.

And I continue to agree with the placement: putting it on the opposite side of the device would be less comfortable. And more visually cluttered.

I will spend ~1.5 hours this year putting on the watch. That’s because it takes me ~15 seconds to put it on, as the band slides around. Two key drivers:

The need to charge it every day.

The design of the Sport band. The Milanese Loop or Link band would reduce the time greatly, but they’re priced much higher.

Without always-on watch faces (discussed below), it’s not the same kind of fashion accessory that a mechanical watch is. It lacks the combined rugged / classy / mechanically sophisticated appeal of my old watch.

Delight (left) vs. utility (right)

Watch Face

Like the industrial design, it’s high on utility and low on enjoyment.

Apart from its fashion role, the watch is a tool (as opposed to an entertainment or content-consumption device). In that context, the view that holds the most bits of useful information, and that’s on the longest, is most valuable. That’s the watch face. (See my related post, here.)

The ones I used the most:

Modular: My preferred watch face. The most information-dense: time + 5 complications. But bland. And it’s the only digital face… on this digital watch. (I owe that observation to Jason Snell, on Macbreak Weekly.)

I don’t find the included faces compelling. I get great and frequent delight in seeing a beautiful or classy watch face. It’s like admiring a good-looking car. None of the current watch faces reached that level. They’re “neat” or “cool”, but… that’s not the same. There are three reasons, with the first two likely driven by battery considerations:

Brevity: The watch face doesn’t stay on for more than about six seconds.

Design: There isn’t, for example, a face that looks like my Victorinox watch.

In this last matter I am, in many ways, longing for skeuomorphism. This may not be a factor for people without a “watch habit”.

More generally – for reasons of utility and aesthetics — in my view, the odds that Apple would deny developers access to the watch face are low. John Gruber believes the odds are low that this will happen, but that if it *does* happen, Apple may use an approach similar to the one for apps on the Apple TV: allow faces only from select partners.

General User Interface Observations

Mostly fine, but laggy.

The “Home Screen”: No issues. Familiar, yet tailored for the display size.

In situations where I have the option to swipe or use the Digital Crown, I swipe 99% of the time.

When I do need the digital crown, it’s very helpful (e.g., set alarm time).

The predictive face-lighting-up is perfect… until it’s not. The times when I twist my wrist and *don’t* see the watch face are frustrating, especially if it flashed on a moment ago. Must-fix.

Similarly, sometimes the weather complication doesn’t display a number, for a moment or two. This drives me to pull out my smartphone, defeating the purpose of the watch. Must fix.

The activity ring user interface is horrible. Emulated and not much better, in my view. It allows for the indicators to have “length”, relative to a straight bar, but they’re hard to recall and hard to read.

Test: quick, tell me which ring means what. And is it the length of the ring that matters, or the number of degrees it spans? (It’s the latter… Which is still confusing, because it means rings of two different lengths indicate the same degree of progress.)

I realize this was probably an unpleasant trade-off Apple had to make. And, on the views that isolate each type: calories, exercise, standing, the circle fills the screen in a pleasing way. But on the watch face, or in a glance view, they’re not helpful. And on the iPhone “Activity” app they’re difficult to visually trend over time.

Apple Pay

Nice to have. Convenient.

Nice. Definitely saves on fumbling for wallet or phone. I just stretch out my arm toward the terminal, and boom.

Have you experienced this: McDonalds was able to accept Apple pay, but not well prepared (at the drive thru). The attendant had to find the hand-held NFC terminal, reach out the window, and hold it there with both arms. Took longer to pay than with a credit card. If the line is long, I’d be more inclined to use my card. I’m assuming this will improve.

Phone Calls

Super convenient to be able to answer a call when it’s in your pocket or not near you.

Speaker works well. The people I’ve talked to believed I was simply on my iPhone.

Navigation

I’m not into navigation on the watch; it’s a last resort. I prefer the phone.

I do need more time with this feature. I like how Maps uses Force Touch, as the way to drill down and search.

Sometimes it’s a bit hard to distinguish between left and right vibration cues.

Digital Touch

I admire it, but I don’t think it’s relevant to me.

I value the thought that went into this, but I’ve not used it. My friends don’t have an Apple Watch.

I think iMore’s Serenity Caldwell mentioned this on the iMore show: Digital Touch would be more useful if you could use it to communicate with iPhones, too. I’m assuming that’s coming.

Third Party Apps

I haven’t needed any. I’d love to discover one that makes my life easier.

Marco Arment: “For most types of apps, the Apple Watch today is best thought of not as a platform to port your app to, but a simple remote control or viewport into your iPhone app.”

I haven’t needed 3rd party apps. That might be my low-touch preference for the watch, limited awareness (as in, recommendations from friends), or limited selection. But so I’ve used very few of them.

This reflects my preference to use the watch only for quick push / pull micro interactions. For apps like Twitter, Yelp, or Amazon (nice voice search), I’d rather use the phone or not use the app at all.

The apps that look most attractive to me are the activity-specific ones: for lists, exercise, remote control. Basically, to help a workflow or provide control.

What I Like the Most / Is there a Killer App?

Fast utility. There’s no killer app today.

Fast utility: I value the overall combination of Siri, Apple Pay, Notifications, Weather, Activity Reminders, Next Calendar Appointment, and Date and Time. It’s a Swiss Army knife on my wrist. Sorry, Old Watch.

Killer app. There may be one. There isn’t today. In any case, this is a general computing device.

I agree with Walt Mossberg’s view on a killer app: “Any new device like this becomes attractive when it looks good, works well, and does multiple useful things of different value to different users.”

Battery Life

Not an issue. But also the biggest issue.

Not an issue. As long as I recharge daily, I don’t run out of power. Sometimes 1.5 days.

I charge at my desk, during the day. That allows me to sleep with watch on, so that I can use the alarm (silently) and easily check the time.

But, to be clear, battery life drives the single biggest hassle and habit disruption: the need to charge the watch daily. That means a) at least one additional charger; b) one more distraction; c) one more “cognitive burden”; c) 1.5 hours per year dealing with plugging it in; d) 1.5 hours spent per year in putting on the watch.

I haven’t noticed any impact to my iPhone battery life, positive or negative.

New Habits, Resulting from Wearing the Watch

Surprisingly few new habits needed, but daily charging is a drag.

Habit = 1) things I now do because of the watch, even if I’m not using it that moment or that day; 2) things I do by being able to glance at the watch face.

Friction Habits

Tapping the watch face to avoid waiting a second or two

Ignoring the stand reminder

Daily taking off / putting on

New charger at my desk. Using another USB port

Monitor watch battery ~1x per day

Benefit Habits

Quickly check the weather. Using the phone, or Amazon Echo, less

Leaving my phone more often, knowing I can still take a call

Quickly check the time

Standing (once in a while)

Overall, I’m surprised how few new habits I’ve had to build into my day. And the time saved by having fast access to time, date, weather, and calendar outweighs (or comes close) to the time spent removing/donning the watch for charging.

What I Miss Most about My “Old Watch”

Rugged looks, classy face. Always on.

Its design: Rugged looks, classy face. I’m not too embarrassed to say: it’s a fashion accessory. In terms of utility, the display is always on. And I don’t have to spend time taking it off and putting it on.

Would I Buy an Apple Watch Again?

Maybe. I need phone independence and/or Siri to integrate with more apps.

From a professional perspective, I’ll need to buy future models to stay current. Especially if/when they gain cellular connectivity.

From a personal perspective, maybe. It’s too early to tell.

I initially thought the title of this piece was going to be “Capability is Addictive”. That’s because – and I don’t claim to represent any consumer in this view – each major step forward in general computing has been a boon. Computer, cell phone, smartphone, tablet – once I had these devices, I couldn’t go back. Capability is addictive. And I really, really thought I would be saying that about Apple Watch: “Capability is addictive”… but I’m not. I like it, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. And when I first used the watch, the novelty of having those capabilities on my wrist led me to believe I’d find them addictive. But they haven’t been. I can’t go back to a feature phone, but I *can* go without the watch. Why? Because I have my iPhone. That makes sense; that’s why the Apple Watch is, at this point, an accessory.

Will it ever be “addictive”? I won’t pretend to predict this. My own view changed in a week or two; how would I dare predict it over a longer span? When many things get better — the laggy display, the dependence on the phone, the need to remove it daily, charge, and put it on again. And the cost of several hundred dollars every so often. And, more intangibly, the fact that there’s more pleasure in taking out my phone (whether that’s good or not) and certainly more pleasure from my analog watch face — when these get better, then I’ll see.

If I do decide to keep buying Apple Watch for personal use, I’ll probably settle into a two year upgrade cycle, eventually.

Where is Apple Watch Going Next?

The slides further down sum up my high level view. Basically, it’s likely Apple will advance along these primary directions:

This is an opportunity for Siri […] imagine […] all this data is there […] “Hey Siri, How’s my health doing?” and it will simply say […] “Over the past 3 days, you achieved your walking goals, however you haven’t been getting up enough, and you should be getting more sleep.”

Every time you do this, it is the watch’s job to figure out why you did that and display that one piece of information that you probably most intensely want so that you can put it down again. I love that this is valuable to me despite the fact that I rarely have to interact with it or tell it what I want.

The group estimates that as many as 500 to 630 million Android devices might not be capable of completely wiping the data saved in their internal disks and SD cards.

The estimate is far from exact, and the real number could be meaningfully lower, but it’s still in the hundreds of millions. As John Gruber, of Daring Fireball would say, tongue in cheek: “Open always wins.”

KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo issued a note to investors today that claims Apple Watch demand may be slowing down, resulting in shipment forecasts being revised down by 20% to 30% to 5-6 million units in the third quarter.

Kuo expects total Apple Watch shipments to fall within the 15 million range for the 2015 fiscal year, lower than the consensus of 20-30 million units, but remains upbeat about the Apple Watch and long-term wearable trends.

KGI also estimates that the 42mm model drives 80% of shipments. That’s based on information about the production split and on order shipment times.

The problem with wearable technology might just be that nobody particularly wants it. Not if you call it “wearable technology,” that is. That’s the conclusion proffered by Marcus Weller, the chief executive and cofounder of Skully, the maker of a “smart” motorcycle helmet. […]

In fact, one of his most useful and actionable observations — especially for an audience full of people making wearable tech products — is that the word “wearable” really doesn’t work in marketing campaigns. It’s actually off-putting.

Instead, Weller advises wearable makers to focus on what their product enables customers to do: Ride safely, enjoy life better, have more fun, or be more productive.

A more reasoned explanation for why products like the iPhone succeed is that they present a wide range of use scenarios that appeal to a broad cross-section of people. Even with the iPod, by the time sales truly began to skyrocket, the iPod came in a variety of different form factors and was something of a jack of all trades as it was able to play video, casual games, display photos, and of course, play music.

Similarly, it stands to reason that the Apple Watch will succeed not because of some wild new futuristic third-party app, but rather because it’s a sleek-looking device that can do a number of varying functions pretty well. Perhaps the fact that the Apple Watch fits seamlessly within the broader iOS ecosystem is all that’s truly needed.

I agree. In fact, when Walt Mossberg published his review, I commented:

That’s the thing about this product. It seemed broad-ranging in functionality when it was announced — and it is — but the upside to that is that it means something different to everyone. (For instance, texting wouldn’t make my top three list. Neither would checking in, at the moment.) I’m not saying a broad range of features was the right move. Only time will tell. But – and this is a big “but” – for people that are curious about smartwatches, it does seem to offer each one something slightly different.

Just like with the iPhone and iPad, Apple intends the Apple Watch to be a general purpose device.

(Correction: I don’t think I should have framed it that way. It really depends on what other features you’ve developed and what parts of the product you’re able to control. And, crucially, the degree of improvement you’re able to make.)

The clusters of cores have different performance and power characteristics. With clever scheduling the mobile OS is able to use the best core for the best job […] more cores equals […] better power efficiency, but not necessarily more performance.